inferences or claims made in one person’s testimony are consistent with the testimony of others. The investigator will also need to assess the consistency of testimonial evidence with other evidence, including physical evidence. Finally, the motives or interests of the person must be considered. Preparing an investigation report An investigation report is usually prepared. While requirements will vary from institution to institution, it typically contains: ■■ ■■ A summary of the complaint, the facts and the evidence, as well as the principal conclusions; The identification of the relevant human rights provisions (laws, international instruments, constitutional rights) that are at issue; ■■ A description of the relevant physical, documentary and testimonial evidence; ■■ An analysis of the evidence to establish the likely truth of the allegation; ■■ A conclusion clearly based on the analysis of the evidence; and ■■ A recommendation as to what action the institution should take to resolve the matter. The decision The decision is the culmination point of the investigative process and is usually defined in the founding legislation. Typically, one or more members of the institution make the decision or, in commissionbased models, the plenary panel of commissioners. This is not universally the case, however; some institutions delegate decision-making to a single official or a small number of officials. In these circumstances the institution usually has checks built into the process to ensure that the decisions taken are sound and consistent. There is typically a finite range of decisions that it can render, for instance: ■■ A violation of human rights has occurred and appropriate remedial action is warranted; ■■ On the balance of evidence, no violation has occurred and the complaint should therefore be dismissed; ■■ Further investigation is required before a final decision can be made; or ■■ The matter should be referred to a competent authority. In the first case—a finding that a violation has occurred—an institution would, in addition to the finding, usually set out either a recommendation for what should be done to resolve the matter, if it has the power to do so, or describe the remedies that it will seek to impose or have imposed, if it has quasi-judicial competence. The enabling legislation of many institutions specifically defines the kinds of remedies that they may apply or seek. While there are no universally accepted standards on what remedies should be sought or imposed when an institution finds that a violation has occurred, in principle remedies should strive to: ■■ Make the victim whole; ■■ Ensure that the perpetrator faces suitable action; ■■ Prevent further similar violations. 89